Imagination and Primacy of Consciousness?

[anthony]

Without concrete examples of what you mean, this is all rather hard to imagine. Anybody care to illustrate what they mean?

You want me to illustrate the points I made in my previous post? Okay.

I wrote:

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

Examples:

Just by looking at the following works of art, you cannot identify their creators' "senses of life," nor their "metaphysical premises," nor their views on the "malevolence or benevolence of the universe," nor much of anything else about them or their philosophical beliefs or values.

I wrote:

Yeah, I don't believe that most art is easily divided into Rand's categories of Naturalism vs Romanticism, malevolent vs benevolent, etc.

Examples: the above sculptures are not easily divided into Rand's categories of Naturalism vs Romanticism. To Rand, the essential nature of Naturalism was that it presented a deterministic view of mankind, where Romanticism presented a volitional view. Each of the sculptures above could be seen as either representing characters submitting to a deterministic fate, or to displaying volitional choice. They could be heroes or zeroes. Each could be interpreted as presenting either a "malevolent" or "benevolent universe premise." The "evidence contained in the works," and even the myths upon which they are based (if we were to allow ourselves access to such information despite its being an "outside consideration" and therefore an Objectivist aesthetic no-no), supports either interpretation.

I wrote:

Yes, and I think most serious fans of the arts seem to agree that Rand's earlier (and more "inductive and subjective") works were better artistically.

On this one I'm not interested in hunting down examples of people who I consider serious fans of the arts and their views on Rand's art. To do so would be too time consuming and not worth the effort. Suffice it to say that most of the people (not all, but most) whom I respect as serious fans of the arts tend to rate Atlas Shrugged as artistically poorer than Rand's previous works. Many of them think that AS is philosophically more mature, and that it's message is perhaps more important ethically than those of her previous novels, but those are not aesthetic judgments.

J

Jonathan,

I agree with the artistic appraisal of Rand's final magnum opus - not unartistic, mind, but less than the others.

I can't think of AS, without reminding myself "13 years"!

Magnificent.

She always knew that this was going to be the great one, that encompassed every single aspect of her philosophy.

I'm sure you know well the difference between those periods of creativity, when things just flow; when you take leaps of connectivity that just 'happen' - and it works brilliantly.

Then the other times you have to work at it, 'deductively' if you like, deliberating all the way.

To emphasise, with Rand I don't believe these were mutually exclusive between her early and later work - illustrated by those many excellent cameos in AS where her artistry shone through - but generally, AS was always going to be thematic and prescriptive, above all.

Now, if you don't think a viewer or reader can interpret the sense of life of a creator - why use the above scuptures as example?

The first is an obvious illustration of - and you don't have to use Rand's nomenclature, but it fits perfectly - a malevolent universe premise.

The contorted anguish and fear we see on his face could well be a mirror of the condition of the world, today. ("the world's out to get me, what am I to do, everything's falling apart, those religions, the government, my job, damn taxes ...my family").

Masterful talent and craft in the statue, but the rest is the stuff of nightmares.

So why can't one 'psychologize' about the artist, and conclude that this is his sense of life too?

The lightness of the nymphs frolicking under the globe cheers one up - even here, I'd think of it as combined naturalist/romanticist, mixed premises maybe.

The last one, I'd think of as neutral; a pretty girl, with nothing to say.

My point is, do you disapprove of Rand's nomenclature, or of her judgementalism? Fundamentally, I think she got it right.

Our emotional response to art, can partially be reached through cognition - which only heightens the emotion, as far as I'm concerned.

Tony

[AristotlesAdvance]

Without concrete examples of what you mean, this is all rather hard to imagine. Anybody care to illustrate what they mean?

You want me to illustrate the points I made in my previous post? Okay.

I wrote:

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

Examples:

Just by looking at the following works of art, you cannot identify their creators' "senses of life," nor their "metaphysical premises," nor their views on the "malevolence or benevolence of the universe," nor much of anything else about them or their philosophical beliefs or values.

I wrote:

Yeah, I don't believe that most art is easily divided into Rand's categories of Naturalism vs Romanticism, malevolent vs benevolent, etc.

Examples: the above sculptures are not easily divided into Rand's categories of Naturalism vs Romanticism. To Rand, the essential nature of Naturalism was that it presented a deterministic view of mankind, where Romanticism presented a volitional view. Each of the sculptures above could be seen as either representing characters submitting to a deterministic fate, or to displaying volitional choice. They could be heroes or zeroes. Each could be interpreted as presenting either a "malevolent" or "benevolent universe premise." The "evidence contained in the works," and even the myths upon which they are based (if we were to allow ourselves access to such information despite its being an "outside consideration" and therefore an Objectivist aesthetic no-no), supports either interpretation.

I wrote:

Yes, and I think most serious fans of the arts seem to agree that Rand's earlier (and more "inductive and subjective") works were better artistically.

On this one I'm not interested in hunting down examples of people who I consider serious fans of the arts and their views on Rand's art. To do so would be too time consuming and not worth the effort. Suffice it to say that most of the people (not all, but most) whom I respect as serious fans of the arts tend to rate Atlas Shrugged as artistically poorer than Rand's previous works. Many of them think that AS is philosophically more mature, and that it's message is perhaps more important ethically than those of her previous novels, but those are not aesthetic judgments.

J

Each of the sculptures above could be seen as either representing characters submitting to a deterministic fate, or to displaying volitional choice.

How do you know that? How do you know whether or not the fate each is supposedly submitting to was determined for them or accepted -- perhaps even sought -- by their own volition? Point out precisely where the deterministic element is in any of these.

[AristotlesAdvance]

Without concrete examples of what you mean, this is all rather hard to imagine. Anybody care to illustrate what they mean?

You want me to illustrate the points I made in my previous post? Okay.

I wrote:

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

Examples:

Just by looking at the following works of art, you cannot identify their creators' "senses of life," nor their "metaphysical premises," nor their views on the "malevolence or benevolence of the universe," nor much of anything else about them or their philosophical beliefs or values.

I wrote:

Yeah, I don't believe that most art is easily divided into Rand's categories of Naturalism vs Romanticism, malevolent vs benevolent, etc.

Examples: the above sculptures are not easily divided into Rand's categories of Naturalism vs Romanticism. To Rand, the essential nature of Naturalism was that it presented a deterministic view of mankind, where Romanticism presented a volitional view. Each of the sculptures above could be seen as either representing characters submitting to a deterministic fate, or to displaying volitional choice. They could be heroes or zeroes. Each could be interpreted as presenting either a "malevolent" or "benevolent universe premise." The "evidence contained in the works," and even the myths upon which they are based (if we were to allow ourselves access to such information despite its being an "outside consideration" and therefore an Objectivist aesthetic no-no), supports either interpretation.

I wrote:

Yes, and I think most serious fans of the arts seem to agree that Rand's earlier (and more "inductive and subjective") works were better artistically.

On this one I'm not interested in hunting down examples of people who I consider serious fans of the arts and their views on Rand's art. To do so would be too time consuming and not worth the effort. Suffice it to say that most of the people (not all, but most) whom I respect as serious fans of the arts tend to rate Atlas Shrugged as artistically poorer than Rand's previous works. Many of them think that AS is philosophically more mature, and that it's message is perhaps more important ethically than those of her previous novels, but those are not aesthetic judgments.

J

Jonathan,

I agree with the artistic appraisal of Rand's final magnum opus - not unartistic, mind, but less than the others.

I can't think of AS, without reminding myself "13 years"!

Magnificent.

She always knew that this was going to be the great one, that encompassed every single aspect of her philosophy.

I'm sure you know well the difference between those periods of creativity, when things just flow; when you take leaps of connectivity that just 'happen' - and it works brilliantly.

Then the other times you have to work at it, 'deductively' if you like, deliberating all the way.

To emphasise, with Rand I don't believe these were mutually exclusive between her early and later work - illustrated by those many excellent cameos in AS where her artistry shone through - but generally, AS was always going to be thematic and prescriptive, above all.

Now, if you don't think a viewer or reader can interpret the sense of life of a creator - why use the above scuptures as example?

The first is an obvious illustration of - and you don't have to use Rand's nomenclature, but it fits perfectly - a malevolent universe premise.

The contorted anguish and fear we see on his face could well be a mirror of the condition of the world, today. ("the world's out to get me, what am I to do, everything's falling apart, those religions, the government, my job, damn taxes ...my family").

Masterful talent and craft in the statue, but the rest is the stuff of nightmares.

So why can't one 'psychologize' about the artist, and conclude that this is his sense of life too?

The lightness of the nymphs frolicking under the globe cheers one up - even here, I'd think of it as combined naturalist/romanticist, mixed premises maybe.

The last one, I'd think of as neutral; a pretty girl, with nothing to say.

My point is, do you disapprove of Rand's nomenclature, or of her judgementalism? Fundamentally, I think she got it right.

Our emotional response to art, can partially be reached through cognition - which only heightens the emotion, as far as I'm concerned.

Tony

Your analysis doesn't go much beyond, "happy-looking characters = volitional universe, ergo romanticism" vs. "unhappy-looking characters = deterministic universe, ergo naturalism." A bit simplistic, no?

It's like saying "Major key = happy; Minor key = sad." No composer ever thought in those terms.

[anthony]

Your analysis doesn't go much beyond, "happy-looking characters = volitional universe, ergo romanticism" vs. "unhappy-looking characters = deterministic universe, ergo naturalism." A bit simplistic, no?

It's like saying "Major key = happy; Minor key = sad." No composer ever thought in those terms.

You want my full critique, it'll cost you (only pounds sterling accepted.)

I go with Einstein's "make everything as simple as possible, but not too simple."

There's got to be a starting place with art appreciation - before one gets in to secondary attributes or other factors - and the sense of life it imparts is paramount to me.

Like, I admire W.Shakespeare immensely, but cannot stomach his gloomy determinism.

That's me.

[kiaer.ts]

Please provide three good illustrative examples for each of your separate categories.

Please provide three good illustrative examples for each of your separate categories.

Please provide nine good reasons, in 6 dialects, in 3 different languages, why I should do anything for you, Keer, after you threw a little hissy-fit in another thread and sneered that you'd never respond to any of my posts. "Division of labor" doesn't mean "I do your work for you."

How dare I take you seriously, you ask? My fault.

If you don't want to make sense, that's your choice. They are your supposed ideas, after all.

I have no problem broadening my refusal to debate pseudoscience with you to ignoring you altogether.

[George H. Smith]

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

I agree with you entirely. In fact, my skepticism may go even deeper than yours. Rand's notion of a "sense of life," as expressed in art, is something that I don't think she articulated and defended very well.

Jeff Riggenbach has written quite a bit about this topic (in defense of Rand), so maybe he will join in. Then again, he and I have had some truly nasty arguments over this subject in past years (on Atlantis and Atlantis II), so maybe it is better if he doesn't. The supposed flamewars on OL are like minor brush fires by comparison.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I think for Rand sense of life was best experienced or identified through music and some literature.

--Brant

[anthony]

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

I agree with you entirely. In fact, my skepticism may go even deeper than yours. Rand's notion of a "sense of life," as expressed in art, is something that I don't think she articulated and defended very well.

Ghs

I don't get it; what's the problem with 'sense of life'?

As far as I knew, everyone instantaneously absorbs the 'feeling' of any created object (or the general demeanour of a person).

I think it is a lightening-fast assessment of generalized percepts from the object, that connect directly to one's consciousness.

Recognition rather than cognition, and inductive rather than deductive. It's like a glimpse into the artwork's 'soul', thence to the artist's.

Any 'problem' comes next - with your 'soul', and it's response. Your premises, and so your value-judgments.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

I agree with you entirely. In fact, my skepticism may go even deeper than yours. Rand's notion of a "sense of life," as expressed in art, is something that I don't think she articulated and defended very well.

Ghs

I don't get it; what's the problem with 'sense of life'?

As far as I knew, everyone instantaneously absorbs the 'feeling' of any created object (or the general demeanour of a person).

I think it is a lightening-fast assessment of generalized percepts from the object, that connect directly to one's consciousness.

Recognition rather than cognition, and inductive rather than deductive. It's like a glimpse into the artwork's 'soul', thence to the artist's.

Any 'problem' comes next - with your 'soul', and it's response. Your premises, and so your value-judgments.

This may or may not be true.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

I agree with you entirely. In fact, my skepticism may go even deeper than yours. Rand's notion of a "sense of life," as expressed in art, is something that I don't think she articulated and defended very well.

Ghs

I don't get it; what's the problem with 'sense of life'?

As far as I knew, everyone instantaneously absorbs the 'feeling' of any created object (or the general demeanour of a person).

I think it is a lightening-fast assessment of generalized percepts from the object, that connect directly to one's consciousness.

Recognition rather than cognition, and inductive rather than deductive. It's like a glimpse into the artwork's 'soul', thence to the artist's.

Any 'problem' comes next - with your 'soul', and it's response. Your premises, and so your value-judgments.

Tony

Rand's concepts are excellent tools for examining art.

The examples Jonathan provided all portray man as a magnificent creature.

What thread contains Jonathan's work? That would be interesting to see.

[anthony]

This may or may not be true.

--Brant

Yup, and as per usual I may not or may be a blithering idiot.

[anthony]

Before it becomes one more 'Rand's ideas of art' debate, I would still like to pursue the initial genesis of an artwork, because the more I consider it, the more feasible that the artist's consciousness almost transcends existence.

The 'almost' is used advisably. I realise that he or she has drawn from reality, first and foremost, BUT, the long period of inner digestion, and slow-brewing, transforms the reality into something many generations removed from the original.

That's 'imagination' to my mind.

Then of course, comes the skill and technique to translate his inner vision back to reality.

I've seen this process up close, in artists I know,- jazz muso/composers, painters, and a sculptor; and in my own (attempted) fiction writing, as well as my photography, to a lesser degree.

Tony

[AristotlesAdvance]

Please provide three good illustrative examples for each of your separate categories.

Please provide three good illustrative examples for each of your separate categories.

Please provide nine good reasons, in 6 dialects, in 3 different languages, why I should do anything for you, Keer, after you threw a little hissy-fit in another thread and sneered that you'd never respond to any of my posts. "Division of labor" doesn't mean "I do your work for you."

How dare I take you seriously, you ask? My fault.

If you don't want to make sense, that's your choice. They are your supposed ideas, after all.

I have no problem broadening my refusal to debate pseudoscience with you to ignoring you altogether.

How dare I take you seriously, you ask?

Sneering and throwing a little temper tantrum is your way of taking someone seriously?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

I agree with you entirely. In fact, my skepticism may go even deeper than yours. Rand's notion of a "sense of life," as expressed in art, is something that I don't think she articulated and defended very well.

Here's just a little gasoline to throw on that fire.

What kind of sense of life did Adolf Hitler have?

Heroic?

If you go by Rand's notion that you can tell a person's soul from his art, musically Hitler was a stellar human being of the finest heroic persuasion. Look at the following article. (This is not a major news source, but this subject was all over the mainstream news around the same time, see here for example, and the following article was based on accounts that are freely available from respectable sources all over the Internet--so this can easily be verified by anyone interested.)

Hitler's Unearthed Music Collection Yields Surprising Finds

Deutsche Welle

August 6, 2007

From the article:

It's no surprise that music from Hitler favorite composers such as Richard Wagner and Ludwig van Beethoven would turn up in the Nazi leader's personal record collection.

Yet a Moscow attic has yielded a more complex picture of the Führer's musical taste. Nearly 100 records suggest Hitler also listened to Russian and Jewish musicians declared "subhuman" by the Nazis...

. . .

In 1945, Lew Besymenski, a captain in Russia's military intelligence unit, went with two other officers to the recently captured Reich Chancellery in Berlin. The headquarters of the Nazi party were located near the secret underground bunker where Hitler committed suicide at the end of World War II.

Besymenski's comrades took silverware engraved with Hitler's initials home with them as souvenirs. Besymenski, a music lover, made an unexpected find. Behind several large steel doors that had been closed with special locks were boxes filled with personal belongings.

. . .

The boxes were awaiting transfer to Hitler's mountain fortress in southern Germany and were filled with plates and various household goods, including Hitler's records.

Besymenski 's daughter, Alexandra Besymenskaja, who is now 53, accidentally came across the box in 1991...

. . .

Surprisingly, Hitler's collection also included Russian composers labeled by the Nazis as "subhuman" such as Peter Tchaikovsky, Alexander Borodin and Sergei Rachmaninoff...

(Oh yes... many Jewish performers, too, but that's for another context.)

These are composers Rand admired as portraying an exalted sense of life, especially Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff. And Hitler listened to this stuff on the sly, similar to what Gail Wynand did in private visits to his personal art stash in The Fountainhead.

Did Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler share a common sense of life?

It's either that, or her formulation about art and sense of life needs a hell of a lot of work.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I don't agree that one's "metaphysical premises" are necessarily "exposed" through one's art. Art is usually quite complex, and identifying an artist's premises, beliefs and "sense of life" through his art is nowhere near as easy, as objective, or as reliable as many Objectivists wish to pretend.

I agree with you entirely. In fact, my skepticism may go even deeper than yours. Rand's notion of a "sense of life," as expressed in art, is something that I don't think she articulated and defended very well.

Ghs

I don't get it; what's the problem with 'sense of life'?

As far as I knew, everyone instantaneously absorbs the 'feeling' of any created object (or the general demeanour of a person).

I think it is a lightening-fast assessment of generalized percepts from the object, that connect directly to one's consciousness.

Recognition rather than cognition, and inductive rather than deductive. It's like a glimpse into the artwork's 'soul', thence to the artist's.

Any 'problem' comes next - with your 'soul', and it's response. Your premises, and so your value-judgments.

Tony

It's been many years since I read Rand on esthetics and a "sense of life," and I don't have the time to do it now, so I hesitate to get into much detail on this topic, lest I inadvertently misrepresent what she had to say.

Suffice it to say that I have never understood why a work of art need manifest a particular sense of life. It might convey a passing mood instead, or some evil or undesirable aspect of life, without suggesting that life itself is malevolent. We may say, with Rand, that art reflects the value judgments of the artist, but this does not mean that the values in question must be fundamental. For example, a writer who has just gone through a nasty divorce might write a cynical novel or screenplay about marriage, but this wouldn't necessarily indicate a cynical "sense of life" in a more general sense.

Although I do not regard myself as a complete "subjectivist" in esthetic matters -- for example, we can distinguish between good and bad writing, regardless of the content -- I do think that subjective factors play a significant role in our overall reactions to art. An obvious example of this is when our temporary moods influence how we respond. Another factor pertains to our early likes and dislikes. Most jazz fans, for example, acquired this taste early in life, as I did. But Rand didn't like jazz, and many O'ists share her reaction. So does this difference reflect different senses of life? I seriously doubt it.

In the final analysis, art is a form of communication, but, in many cases, art can be an inchoate type of communication that leaves considerable subjective latitude in matters pertaining to "meaning" and interpretation. Consider the movie "American Beauty" (starring Kevin Spacey). I loved this movie, as did JR and some other people I know, but it was roundly denounced by many orthodox O'ists as exhibiting a malevolent sense of life. To me, this "objective" appraisal merely meant that these O'ists personally disliked the movie, for whatever reason. They may have focused on different aspects of the movie than I did, but whatever the reasons may be for our differing reactions, I seriously doubt if these differences can be accounted for with a "sense of life" explanation.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

These are composers Rand admired as portraying an exalted sense of life, especially Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff. And Hitler listened to this stuff on the sly, similar to what Gail Wynand did in private visits to his personal art stash in The Fountainhead.

Did Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler share a common sense of life?

It's either that, or her formulation about art and sense of life needs a hell of a lot of work.

I would love to see the reaction if you posted these comments on SOLO.

Back in the 1960's, Look Magazine ran a photo spread on Rand, along with an unflattering article. This article elicited my all-time favorite response, in the form of a letter to the editor, by an O'ist: "If you insist on behaving like cockroaches, be prepared to be treated like cockroaches." (I could be wrong about the magazine involved. A number of major magazines of the time published snarky articles about Rand. I used to have copies of them -- the fruit of spending more time in the University of Arizona library than in classes -- but I lost them years ago.)

I suspect that your remarks would place you somewhere below cockroaches on the O'ist food chain.

[Reidy]

Pretty sure that was Robert Hessen in answer to Newsweek's review of FTNI (unless this was a standard Objectivist locution in those days).

[jriggenbach]

Consider the movie "American Beauty" (starring Kevin Spacey). I loved this movie, as did JR and some other people I know, but it was roundly denounced by many orthodox O'ists as exhibiting a malevolent sense of life.

Just for the record, I did not "love" American Beauty. I thought it was pretty good, and I could see that, contrary to the assertions of various rabid Objectivists at the time it came out, it was thematically and symbolically coherent. So, to counter the rampaging ignorance on the Objectivist list I was then addicted to reading, I said these things publicly and at some length. I've never seen the film a second time, and I doubt I ever will. When I "love" a film, I see it multiple times.

Also for the record, I agree entirely with Ayn Rand's analysis of "sense of life" and its role in artistic creation and appreciation. I think, in fact, that, along with the ideas expressed in her seminal essay on aesthetic theory, "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art," her theory of "sense of life" is among the most impressive of all her philosophical achievements. Properly understood, it makes better sense of my own sixty-odd years of exposing myself to works of art than any other single aesthetic theory I've ever encountered - though I've learned important things about the subject from other writers, too, including Kant, Henri Bergson, and Susanne K. Langer.

I should probably add that I don't personally care much what kind of sense of life an artist reveals in his or her work. I'm fixated by aesthetic excellence - the technical proficiency (or lack of it) with which an artist presents whatever his or her sense of life happens to be. I would much rather read a highly artistic novel that depicts the world as a hopeless, malevolent sewer than an amateurish, cartoonish novel that depicts the human condition in terms Rand would approve of (and probably tacks on a ridiculous "happy, uplifiting" ending to boot).

I have no interest in commenting further on this topic, or in dispelling the confusion revealed by questions raised on this thread ("Why can't I write a slightly cynical novel about marriage without having a cynical sense of life?" "Did Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler have the same sense of life?"). I have more pressing things to attend to right now.

JR

[George H. Smith]

Just for the record, I did not "love" American Beauty. I thought it was pretty good, and I could see that, contrary to the assertions of various rabid Objectivists at the time it came out, it was thematically and symbolically coherent. So, to counter the rampaging ignorance on the Objectivist list I was then addicted to reading, I said these things publicly and at some length. I've never seen the film a second time, and I doubt I ever will. When I "love" a film, I see it multiple times.

I stand corrected.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

These are composers Rand admired as portraying an exalted sense of life, especially Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff. And Hitler listened to this stuff on the sly, similar to what Gail Wynand did in private visits to his personal art stash in The Fountainhead.

Did Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler share a common sense of life?

It's either that, or her formulation about art and sense of life needs a hell of a lot of work.

I would love to see the reaction if you posted these comments on SOLO.

Back in the 1960's, Look Magazine ran a photo spread on Rand, along with an unflattering article. This article elicited my all-time favorite response, in the form of a letter to the editor, by an O'ist: "If you insist on behaving like cockroaches, be prepared to be treated like cockroaches." (I could be wrong about the magazine involved. A number of major magazines of the time published snarky articles about Rand. I used to have copies of them -- the fruit of spending more time in the University of Arizona library than in classes -- but I lost them years ago.)

I suspect that your remarks would place you somewhere below cockroaches on the O'ist food chain.

That was Edith Efron in Newsweek. I have it somewhere. Barry Goldwater is on the cover. Newsweek ran an unflattering photo of Rand with the letter section. The caption was "Greatest Ever?" I never saw the original article she was responding to. This was 1962.

--Brant

Look did do a photo spread

Edited December 7, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

Pretty sure that was Robert Hessen in answer to Newsweek's review of FTNI (unless this was a standard Objectivist locution in those days).

You may be right; Newsweek was my second guess. Look stood out in my mind because, as I recall, it said something about the "cult" that surrounded Rand.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Pretty sure that was Robert Hessen in answer to Newsweek's review of FTNI (unless this was a standard Objectivist locution in those days).

You may be right; Newsweek was my second guess. Look stood out in my mind because, as I recall, it said something about the "cult" that surrounded Rand.

Ghs

He's wrong. Absolutely!

--Brant

might have been 1961

[Reidy]

The part about the unflattering photo captioned "Greatest Ever?" is correct. Newsweek ran it with some of the letters they got (including Hessen's) for their review in 1961. The Saturday Evening Post ran an article entitled "The Curious Cult of Ayn Rand" later the same year. The photos were pretty good. The article was a slam; Rand's published letters include an unrealistic (even before the public figure doctrine) threat to sue. Look ran a photo (judge for yourself) and a quote during the 1964 campaign as part of a spread titled "Goldwater People". The New Leader ran Efron's letter in response to a nasty article (no photos) by Nora Sayre. I saw the Newsweek letters at the time, not having read the review itself, before I discovered Rand; the SEP article was my first introduction.

[George H. Smith]

The part about the unflattering photo captioned "Greatest Ever?" is correct. Newsweek ran it with some of the letters they got (including Hessen's) for their review in 1961. The Saturday Evening Post ran an article entitled "The Curious Cult of Ayn Rand" later the same year. The photos were pretty good. The article was a slam; Rand's published letters include an unrealistic (even before the public figure doctrine) threat to sue. Look ran a photo (judge for yourself) and a quote during the 1964 campaign as part of a spread titled "Goldwater People". The New Leader ran Efron's letter in response to a nasty article (no photos) by Nora Sayre. I saw the Newsweek letters at the time, not having read the review itself, before I discovered Rand; the SEP article was my first introduction.

Oh, so it was the Post instead of Look that ran the "Curious Cult" article that I was thinking of. I don't why I even try to jog memories from that long ago. Although I am usually right on general points, I almost always get some details wrong.

Ghs

[Reidy]

The caption alluded to one of the letters, which hit its high note with "Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who ever lived." (True, but not everyone thought so in those days).